Jump to content
Mikethemaster2018

Three Houses does a lot tell and not show

Recommended Posts

On 1/14/2020 at 3:50 PM, Mikethemaster2018 said:

I haven't gotten to far in golden deer only on chapter 3 or 4 but yeah when I played CF they never really show what Claude could do he was called the Master Tectician and that it.

Addressing the Master Tactician Claude thing. I really doubt that Claude himself believes that which is why Byleth is the primary tactician. The Tactician thing imo is just a label given to him which he doesn't care for too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

So it's pretty clear that they were always civilians, even if they are a militia. But the Knights of Seiros wiped them all out.

Interestingly, Dimitri is the only one shared such view, Byleth, Claude, Edelgard, Ferdinand, Lorenzo all viewed them as militia and legal combatant.

In fact, this is where Edelgard stated her famous quote "we have no choice but to eliminate those who cling to unreasonable ideas of justice." regarding to these militiamen.

Lornato's army is an analogue of real world medieval feudal army, lead by cadre of a few noble and knight, with a small part of men-at-arms (professional soldier trained from commoners), with bulk force of seasonal militia conscripted from peasants (known as levy) This would reflect Ashes comment on comparing them to knights and soldiers.

 

The scene is called "reality of war" in Japanese I believe, I think it's kind foreshadowing what comes to be later in the game.

From cutscene we know that later both Empire and Alliance began to draft average citizens into their military (the deer hunter vs wolf hunter), so the soldiers we were fighting later is essentially no different than Lornato's men, except wearing national uniform rather than local lords', but I see few people have moral dilemma killing them compared to Lornato's. Maybe players are also hardened just like the students in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Timlugia said:

Interestingly, Dimitri is the only one shared such view, Byleth, Claude, Edelgard, Ferdinand, Lorenzo all viewed them as militia and legal combatant.

In fact, this is where Edelgard stated her famous quote "we have no choice but to eliminate those who cling to unreasonable ideas of justice." regarding to these militiamen.

Lornato's army is an analogue of real world medieval feudal army, lead by cadre of a few noble and knight, with a small part of men-at-arms (professional soldier trained from commoners), with bulk force of seasonal militia conscripted from peasants (known as levy) This would reflect Ashes comment on comparing them to knights and soldiers.

 

The scene is called "reality of war" in Japanese I believe, I think it's kind foreshadowing what comes to be later in the game.

From cutscene we know that later both Empire and Alliance began to draft average citizens into their military (the deer hunter vs wolf hunter), so the soldiers we were fighting later is essentially no different than Lornato's men, except wearing national uniform rather than local lords', but I see few people have moral dilemma killing them compared to Lornato's. Maybe players are also hardened just like the students in the game.

It's less that the other didn't see the same thing. But Dimitri is the one more torn cause he's the prince of Faerghus, meaning he fought his own people and had to kill them. But even in the other routes, it's indicated how horrible it was.

Quote

Caspar: Damn it! It was all so pointless. I've never seen so many people utterly heartbroken...

Ferdinand: Forcing innocent citizens to risk their lives... That man was not a noble, but a monster.

And though Edelgard had that line, she still treated Lonato and the citizens that died with respect, since they fought for their beliefs, and it would be bad to disrespect their choices. 

As for the war itself, keep in mind that Edelgard doesn't force people to fight for her side. She doesn't conscript people. People sided with her because they believed in her cause, fighting to the death for their beliefs for similar reasons. This is why Seteth retracts what he said about Edelgard in SS, realizing that she's not some evil tyrant. 

But the issue is that Rhea writes off the deaths of Lonato and the civilians that fought alongside him as nothing. To her, they were merely sinners, and even warned Byleth that this is what meets people that would dare to oppose the Church. That's a way of both showing and telling. You fight Lonato, who opposed the Church, and we're told that if you cross the Church, or Rhea, you will meet the same fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lonato took arms first, and the people followed him willingly. It's entirely in the right of the church to kill them. Not having sympathy for your enemies makes you are merciless not evil. Anti-heroes can be merciless too. And in general, during the whole game Rhea does not kill or attempt to kill a single person that did not try to kill her first, except in CF and SS final battles. It's not a tyrranny bad enought to justify a 5 years long war that kill thousands and thousands for people. The church would require decades or centuries to get that bodycount on failed rebellions like Lonato's.

Wich lead to my greatest problem. They never really showed us the situation of the common people, the ones that in theory suffer under this tyranny. We don't know how the average citizien of Fodlan see the crests, the nobility and the church, if they are in poverty or not, how many people are burned for heresy per year, whatever they actually burn people for heresy or not and things like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flere210 said:

Lonato took arms first, and the people followed him willingly. It's entirely in the right of the church to kill them. Not having sympathy for your enemies makes you are merciless not evil. Anti-heroes can be merciless too. And in general, during the whole game Rhea does not kill or attempt to kill a single person that did not try to kill her first, except in CF and SS final battles. It's not a tyrranny bad enought to justify a 5 years long war that kill thousands and thousands for people. The church would require decades or centuries to get that bodycount on failed rebellions like Lonato's.

Well, they...did have centuries...but I digress.

I don't take issue with her executing the rebels. What I do take issue with is not questioning them first. She's so concerned over them attacking the church (re: her family's legacy) that she doesn't consider that there might be more of them out there, and that the prisoners they have could lead them to...oh, I don't know...Slither? And she does the same to the Flame Emperor at the Holy Tomb. Would it not be in Rhea's best interest to pump them for information before ordering their deaths? It doesn't make her evil, but I do think it makes her look dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

As for the war itself, keep in mind that Edelgard doesn't force people to fight for her side. She doesn't conscript people. People sided with her because they believed in her cause, fighting to the death for their beliefs for similar reasons. This is why Seteth retracts what he said about Edelgard in SS, realizing that she's not some evil tyrant.

fire_emblem_paintings_07.jpg

This guy and his family doesn't strike me like they volunteered for army.

And considering this family is a farmer, I question how his family going to survive the coming year once he's gone, that makes him volunteer even more unlikely.

 

Quote

Hanneman: And of course, the Crest Stones somehow transformed those traitors and their captives into Demonic Beasts..

I also doubt those who turned into demonic beasts were volunteers either.

 

Quote

Lysithea: Correct. And he imposed even heavier taxes on the people, squeezing them painfully dry. The people were conscripted for duty. Any who opposed were killed on the spot. Lord Arundel did this in the name of Duke Aegir.

While it was Arundel giving the order here, Arundel is the Regent of Empire, thus represents Imperial government. Note that I didn't say "Edelgard ordered conscription", but empire (and likely the two other nations) as whole certainly does according to Lysithea, and conscription was even before the war.

Besides, every country realistically going to have both patriot and regular people indifferent about government. Of course there are die hard imperials like those defending the bridge, but the game also implied rest of Imperial Army surrendered en masse to Byleth or simply disbanded once Enbarr was fallen, the whole northern and southern frontline simply collapsed without a battle within days. If all the imperial armies were highly motivated volunteers like you said, would they really surrender to a small strike force that was so cut off behind the enemy line? Shouldn't they all fight to the death to retake Enbarr for their country?

 

How is killing the farmer guy or hunter above any less moral dilemma than Lornato's men? They too have father and children.

Hence I think "Reality of War" is really a foreshadow that civilians will be real casualty of war later in the game.

Edited by Timlugia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2020 at 7:32 AM, Yexin said:

 

also jeralt, he's supposed to be the strongest man (or mercenary? can't remember) in all fódlan, but that is all, we're supposed to believe it without any demonstration of his actual strength

I mean, he has a pretty high strength stat.

jokes aside I dislike how they did this with Jeralt’s since he’s a cool character, and it’s especially annoying since they have pulled off something similar to this before.

Minor spoilers for PoR and GotHW

Spoiler

- In Fire emblem four, the Legendary weapons are said to have the ability to single handily turn the tides of battle, and the wielded able to take on armies by themselves. This is demonstrated magnificently in the gameplay with legendary weapons granting the ability to solo areas of the map. When Shannan joins and gets his hands on the Balmung he is able to clear the enemies near his starting position by himself, the bosses with legendary weapons such as Ishtar or Arvis are also some of the toughest bosses in the game.

 

- Much like Jeralt , in Path of Radiance Greil is said to be one of the strongest fighters on the continent. Greil is shown to be capable of taking on strong warriors by himself as shown when he takes on Petrine, but the big thing that shows his strength is the revelation that he taught the Black Knight. The player is already witness to the Black Knights strength when he kills Greil, and appears in chapter 12 as an unkillable enemy. The player will then compare Greils strength to the BK, thus cementing that he was a truely powerful warrior.   

This never happens for Jeralt, but I wish it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Timlugia said:

I also doubt those who turned into demonic beasts were volunteers either.

I doubt that Edelgard actually is able to control what the Agarthans do, given how even in CF, where she doesn't even use Crest Beasts, the Agarthans still make them.

7 hours ago, Timlugia said:

While it was Arundel giving the order here, Arundel is the Regent of Empire, thus represents Imperial government. Note that I didn't say "Edelgard ordered conscription", but empire (and likely the two other nations) as whole certainly does according to Lysithea, and conscription was even before the war.

This is only in the other routes, not in CF, where Edelgard actually does imply that there's a lack of fighters on her side, she indicates as such in the conversation with Nader during Chapter 14. This might very well be why she is trying to stop Claude from interfering, since Claude went out of his way to incite internal conflict himself for the sake of preventing any Alliance lords that wish to help Edelgard from joining, since he wants to conquer and rule Fodlan himself.

Given that in CF, the Ferdinand and Lysithea paralogue doesn't happen, it's likely that with the help of others, they were able to prevent the forceful conscription of others. 

7 hours ago, Timlugia said:

Besides, every country realistically going to have both patriot and regular people indifferent about government. Of course there are die hard imperials like those defending the bridge, but the game also implied rest of Imperial Army surrendered en masse to Byleth or simply disbanded once Enbarr was fallen, the whole northern and southern frontline simply collapsed without a battle within days. If all the imperial armies were highly motivated volunteers like you said, would they really surrender to a small strike force that was so cut off behind the enemy line? Shouldn't they all fight to the death to retake Enbarr for their country?

Keep in mind that Edelgard herself told Byleth to kill her so that people would stop fighting during those routes, letting her death be the last one for the rest of the people. But it doesn't change that there were still many people that still fought to the death for Edelgard that is noted in the game.

7 hours ago, Timlugia said:

How is killing the farmer guy or hunter above any less moral dilemma than Lornato's men? They too have father and children.

Hence I think "Reality of War" is really a foreshadow that civilians will be real casualty of war later in the game.

Because the problem is that you killed them all as an example of what should happen if you oppose the Church. Literally Rhea using this as an example. In the case of how the others react, they feel how horrible it was to kill them, but in Rhea's case, she shows no care for them, because she doesn't care. If you oppose the Church, you die. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not hard to pick out the Edelgard stans in this thread.

In regards to the OP, I agree. Claude's cleverness feels very informed and CF does a really poor job of depicting Rhea and the church as especially vile. Edelgard says they're bad, so they must be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Given that in CF, the Ferdinand and Lysithea paralogue doesn't happen, it's likely that with the help of others, they were able to prevent the forceful conscription of others. 

This more because Hyrm is in allied territory in CF, it's also under stable leadership and is not under attack by the alliance so the revolt doesn't happen. Whereas in other routes Hyrm is still part of the empire but has much weaker leadership as by the point the paralogue unlocks Byleth's group has already pushed into Empire territory, so there is a need to maintain order in the area. While it is true that Edelgard does not agree with Conscription (she gives the black eagle students multiple chances to flee) I don't think you can use this paralogue as evidence that there was no conscription in the empire.

And even if it only happens on non-CF routes, those routes still exist and you need to acknowledge the events that happen there as well, not just on your preferred route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SpiceMan said:

This more because Hyrm is in allied territory in CF, it's also under stable leadership and is not under attack by the alliance so the revolt doesn't happen. Whereas in other routes Hyrm is still part of the empire but has much weaker leadership as by the point the paralogue unlocks Byleth's group has already pushed into Empire territory, so there is a need to maintain order in the area. While it is true that Edelgard does not agree with Conscription (she gives the black eagle students multiple chances to flee) I don't think you can use this paralogue as evidence that there was no conscription in the empire.

And even if it only happens on non-CF routes, those routes still exist and you need to acknowledge the events that happen there as well, not just on your preferred route. 

Of course, in the other routes, Edelgard's ability as a ruler is much weaker if you notice, while in CF, it seems to have become much stronger. It could be that because Edelgard was able to rely and open up to friends in CF, she was able to become much stronger and instill a much stronger loyalty toward others. It's even remarked that in the five years since the war, the disorder in the populace of the Empire from going to war against the Church calmed down, but this is only in CF. 

When she lost the battle of Garreg Mach in Chapter 12 in the other routes, Edelgard basically accepted Arundel's help, which basically seemed to indicate an indirect way of how she was not able to stay strong without succumbing to their help. But in CF, because she managed to win without using Arundel's strategy, she managed to restrict him more. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

 This might very well be why she is trying to stop Claude from interfering, since Claude went out of his way to incite internal conflict himself for the sake of preventing any Alliance lords that wish to help Edelgard from joining, since he wants to conquer and rule Fodlan himself.

This is the second time you brought out this argument, and this is extremely pro-Empire bias if you haven't realized.

What you are describing here is literally treason in any nation, that House Gloucester, a sworn house of Alliance, betraying their nation and elected leader to aid an hostile one. And how does that give Empire justification to invade another nation over their internal affair? It's like saying US has justification to attack and conquer whole Canada because some Quebecos wants to join US.

 

And no, Alliance didn't start the war like you claimed the last time. The game literally said Empire started it:

Quote

In Imperial Year 1181, the New Adrestian Emperor, Edelgard von Hresvelg, led a strategic assault against the monastery at Garreg Mach. Though her own losses were great, her foes had no choice but to surrender. Archbishop Rhea commanded the Knights of Seiros, leading from the front lines against the Imperial Army. But amidst the chaos of battle, she vanished, and her whereabouts remain unknown. With this single attack, the Adrestian Empire officially launched its offensive against the Holy Kingdom of Faerghus and the Leicester Alliance. The unification of Fodlan has begun.  (Non-CF Version)

Narrator: In Imperial Year 1181, the new Adrestian emperor, Edelgard von Hresvelg, led a strategic assault against the monastery at Garreg Mach. Though her own losses were great, her foes had no choice but to surrender. Archbishop Rhea commanded the Knights of Seiros, leading from the front lines against the Imperial army. After a hard fought battle, she was forced to retreat to Fhirdiad, the capital of Faerghus, where she must now plan her next move. With this single attack, the Adrestian Empire officially launched its offensive against the Holy Kingdom of Faerghus and the Leicester Alliance. The unification of Fódlan has begun.  (CF Version)

 

Edited by Timlugia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Timlugia said:

This is the second time you brought out this argument, and this is extremely pro-Empire bias if you haven't realized.

What you are describing here is literally treason in any nation, that House Gloucester, a sworn house of Alliance, betraying their nation and elected leader to aid an hostile one. And how does that give Empire justification to invade another nation over their internal affair? It's like saying US has justification to attack and conquer whole Canada because some Quebecos wants to join US.

False. First off, the Alliance is not even a fully unified nation. The lords generally all do what they want. Keep in mind that not only did Count Gloucester kill the former Duke Riegan, but also how House Ordelia tried to help assist House Hrym in defecting the Empire, and then the other Houses let House Ordelia suffer from Imperial wrath as a consequence.

Houses are basically free to act s they want and it wouldn't even be considered treason by any means. Gloucester, Ordelia, Edmund, etc. They can help the Empire in the war against the Church of Seiros. 

7 minutes ago, Timlugia said:

This is the second time you brought out this argument, and this is extremely pro-Empire bias if you haven't realized.

What you are describing here is literally treason in any nation, that House Gloucester, a sworn house of Alliance, betraying their nation and elected leader to aid an hostile one. And how does that give Empire justification to invade another nation over their internal affair? It's like saying US has justification to attack and conquer whole Canada because some Quebecos wants to join US.

Also, for the record, I never ONCE said that the Alliance started the war. The Empire started the war, but in regards to that dialogue, keep in mind that the Empire actually is stated in CF to have never once touched the Alliance. 

Quote

Soldier: There were clashes with the Kingdom army near the western front, but this is the first time the Alliance army has had an honest-to-goodness fight. I hear their leader's pretty competent, but the Alliance army is pretty tough too.

Hubert: As for the Alliance, Houses Gloucester and Ordelia seem predisposed to capitulate with us. However, due to interference from Houses Reigan and Gonreil, we have yet to secure their cooperation. Claude obviously hopes to keep the Alliance whole through diplomacy. But because we have had to focus our efforts against the church until now, our forces have yet to meet his. We have only recently begun to take the fight to Alliance territory.

So contrary to what the narration said, which acts more as a historic guide, the Empire never touched the Alliance through the course of five years.

The Empire might have started the war, but with the Kingdom, Dimitri allied with Rhea, thus dragging his nation to join the war. And Claude meddled with all Alliance nobles that tried to help the Empire which was perfectly within their rights, thus basically acting against the Empire, which means that Claude took a stance against the Empire and opposed them, since Claude wanted to actually conquer Fodlan himself.

I mean, he literally admits it:

Quote

Claude: Heh, you think too highly of me. It just seems that way now. Outside of Derdriu, most of the Alliance is unscathed and ready to join your superior strength. In all honesty, I was hoping to become a supreme ruler and lead Fodlan to peace myself. But...that won't be happening now.

And don't even think about saying that he's joking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2020 at 8:46 PM, Sid Starkiller said:

I don't take issue with her executing the rebels. What I do take issue with is not questioning them first. She's so concerned over them attacking the church (re: her family's legacy) that she doesn't consider that there might be more of them out there, and that the prisoners they have could lead them to...oh, I don't know...Slither? And she does the same to the Flame Emperor at the Holy Tomb. Would it not be in Rhea's best interest to pump them for information before ordering their deaths? It doesn't make her evil, but I do think it makes her look dumb.

Agreed. Rhea is too hasty to punish, and it's a sign of the Church's arrogance (notably Seteth, too, goes along with the hasty execution). I wish the story punished her for it, although arguably it does - by questioning them, perhaps she could have identified the Flame Emperor sooner, maybe even preventing the war before it began.

8 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Claude: Heh, you think too highly of me. It just seems that way now. Outside of Derdriu, most of the Alliance is unscathed and ready to join your superior strength. In all honesty, I was hoping to become a supreme ruler and lead Fodlan to peace myself. But...that won't be happening now.

The thing is, though, Claude doesn't act on that ambition, at least not visibly. He certainly doesn't make a move militarily. Even if Edelgard knew, in advance, "Huh, Claude wants to rule all of Fódlan", she's not justified in launching an invasion unless the Alliance actually takes action, or she has evidence that such action is imminent. Otherwise, Claude would be just as justified in invading the Empire, since Edelgard wants to unite all of Fódlan too.

Now, would it be treason for Houses Gloucester or Ordelia to defect to the Empire? That depends on how they're constituted. If the Alliance is a confederation (like the EU), such that state sovereignty outweighs the central authority, then it might be allowed. But if they're a federation (like the US), wherein the reverse is (largely) true, then it's almost certainly forbidden. For what it's worth, the notion of a member state of a group that "recognizes no king or emperor" defecting to either the Kingdom or the Empire, certainly seems to run counter to the spirit on which the Alliance was founded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

The thing is, though, Claude doesn't act on that ambition, at least not visibly. He certainly doesn't make a move militarily. Even if Edelgard knew, in advance, "Huh, Claude wants to rule all of Fódlan", she's not justified in launching an invasion unless the Alliance actually takes action, or she has evidence that such action is imminent. Otherwise, Claude would be just as justified in invading the Empire, since Edelgard wants to unite all of Fódlan too.

But it makes strategic sense at least. If she went for the Kingdom first, Claude would likely launch an attack on Edelgard's flank, basically the reverse of how AM's Deirdru chapter goes. Dimitri in CF is too busy defending the Kingdom and guarding Rhea to launch a big offensive like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Agreed. Rhea is too hasty to punish, and it's a sign of the Church's arrogance (notably Seteth, too, goes along with the hasty execution). I wish the story punished her for it, although arguably it does - by questioning them, perhaps she could have identified the Flame Emperor sooner, maybe even preventing the war before it began.

That's why I think Byleth can choose to side with Edelgard after seeing the coronation. Because there, he witnessed Edelgard strip Duke Aegir of power and imprison him, but not kill him. When Edelgard was at Rhea's mercy after Chapter 11 battle, Rhea immediately ordered for Edelgard's death. Not capture for questioning and then using her to stop a war, but just demanding death, even though such an action would 100% mean war. 

30 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

The thing is, though, Claude doesn't act on that ambition, at least not visibly. He certainly doesn't make a move militarily. Even if Edelgard knew, in advance, "Huh, Claude wants to rule all of Fódlan", she's not justified in launching an invasion unless the Alliance actually takes action, or she has evidence that such action is imminent. Otherwise, Claude would be just as justified in invading the Empire, since Edelgard wants to unite all of Fódlan too.

Now, would it be treason for Houses Gloucester or Ordelia to defect to the Empire? That depends on how they're constituted. If the Alliance is a confederation (like the EU), such that state sovereignty outweighs the central authority, then it might be allowed. But if they're a federation (like the US), wherein the reverse is (largely) true, then it's almost certainly forbidden. For what it's worth, the notion of a member state of a group that "recognizes no king or emperor" defecting to either the Kingdom or the Empire, certainly seems to run counter to the spirit on which the Alliance was founded.

Claude is already meddling with Empire sympathizers in the war, such as Ordelia and Gloucester, two major noble houses that have every right to support and aid the Empire in the war if they wish to, and they do. They didn't need to defect to the Empire. They can simply lend their aid in the war by allying with them. Keep in mind that Count Gloucester murdered the former Duke Riegan, and House Ordelia tried to aid House Hrym in defecting the Empire, and suffered Imperial wrath, and the other Houses didn't bother to help them.

In the end, Claude incited conflicts and meddled in the affairs, actively preventing any aid from being sent to the Empire. It might be non-violent, but it's still actually an act that would provoke action from the Empire. 

Claude not acting out wouldn't mean anything when he would have attacked anyways with the Almyrans. Ultimately, Claude shut Derdriu down, endangering the civilians by making them unable to even leave the city. Hubert noted this and anticipated that Claude was planning on making his own attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sid Starkiller said:

But it makes strategic sense at least. If she went for the Kingdom first, Claude would likely launch an attack on Edelgard's flank, basically the reverse of how AM's Deirdru chapter goes. Dimitri in CF is too busy defending the Kingdom and guarding Rhea to launch a big offensive like that.

Well, that's two different discussions. An immoral or unjustified invasion can certainly be strategically sound.

But I generally disagree with this. The Kingdom+Church and Empire seem to have been at a standstill for five years. In invading the Alliance, Edelgard almost certainly takes more troops, either from the Kingdom front, or internally. If there were an abundance of internal troops, they would have been re-dedicated to fighting at the front, to try and take Kingdom territory. So I see it as unlikely that Edelgard's move did not weaken the defenses on the Kingdom front, at least temporarily. Perhaps Dimitri and Rhea have an information failure, or some unseen problem plaguing them (sabotage by Cornelia, perhaps?). Based on what little we know, though, it's entirely possible that Edelgard launching an offensive against the Alliance would have provided the Kingdom an opening to take Imperial territory - or, perhaps, to march all the way to Enbarr. Edelgard is more lucky that things go her way, than anything else.

Spoiler

In the end, Claude incited conflicts and meddled in the affairs, actively preventing any aid from being sent to the Empire. It might be non-violent, but it's still actually an act that would provoke action from the Empire. 

Claude's actions may have been improper, but they were still an internal matter to the Alliance. He did not do the Empire harm, he merely prevented other Alliance lords from offering the Empire help. Invading is at best an over-reaction, sanctions may have been an appropriate response by the Empire.

Spoiler

 Claude not acting out wouldn't mean anything when he would have attacked anyways with the Almyrans. Ultimately, Claude shut Derdriu down, endangering the civilians by making them unable to even leave the city. Hubert noted this and anticipated that Claude was planning on making his own attack.

Shutting down Derdrieu was done right before chapter 14, after the invasion began, yes? If so, Claude is certainly justified in launching a counter-attack against the country that just invaded his own, and was attempting to take the capiral. He likely viewed shutting down the city as necessary for this step, even if it was morally questionable (of course, he wouldn't need to resort to such a tactic, had the invasion never occured). And we can't know whether he would have attacked a non-invasive Empire by calling on the support of Almyra (doing so would likely splinter the Alliance further). We only know he did in this case, when the fates of House Riegan, and the whole Alliance, were at stake.

Spoiler

That's why I think Byleth can choose to side with Edelgard after seeing the coronation. Because there, he witnessed Edelgard strip Duke Aegir of power and imprison him, but not kill him. When Edelgard was at Rhea's mercy after Chapter 11 battle, Rhea immediately ordered for Edelgard's death. Not capture for questioning and then using her to stop a war, but just demanding death.

That's... actually a really good rationale for why the coronation scene is required for Byleth to go CF. Not sure if that's what the devs had in mind, but I like the interpretation. 

Edited by Shanty Pete's 1st Mate
Added response to Omegaaxis1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2020 at 1:45 AM, Glennstavos said:

"Actually, Three Houses shows us a lot of things. Here, let me show you."

Screen fades to black

"See? Don't you really feel like you're there in this scene?"

"Wow, you've really opened my eyes! Hey, while we're here in this black void, want to duel?"

"It'd be my pleasure." 

*clang* *clang*

"Phew, what a workout."

For the route that seems to have gotten the Lion's Share of the budget, that one character trying to kill Dimitri after Gronder Field was ridiculously half-assed.

2 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Well, that's two different discussions. An immoral or unjustified invasion can certainly be strategically sound.

But I generally disagree with this. The Kingdom+Church and Empire seem to have been at a standstill for five years. In invading the Alliance, Edelgard almost certainly takes more troops, either from the Kingdom front, or internally. If there were an abundance of internal troops, they would have been re-dedicated to fighting at the front, to try and take Kingdom territory. So I see it as unlikely that Edelgard's move did not weaken the defenses on the Kingdom front, at least temporarily. Perhaps Dimitri and Rhea have an information failure, or some unseen problem plaguing them (sabotage by Cornelia, perhaps?). Based on what little we know, though, it's entirely possible that Edelgard launching an offensive against the Alliance would have provided the Kingdom an opening to take Imperial territory - or, perhaps, to march all the way to Enbarr. Edelgard is more lucky that things go her way, than anything else.

  Reveal hidden contents

In the end, Claude incited conflicts and meddled in the affairs, actively preventing any aid from being sent to the Empire. It might be non-violent, but it's still actually an act that would provoke action from the Empire. 

Claude's actions may have been improper, but they were still an internal matter to the Alliance. He did not do the Empire harm, he merely prevented other Alliance lords from offering the Empire help. Invading is at best an over-reaction, sanctions may have been an appropriate response by the Empire.

  Reveal hidden contents

 Claude not acting out wouldn't mean anything when he would have attacked anyways with the Almyrans. Ultimately, Claude shut Derdriu down, endangering the civilians by making them unable to even leave the city. Hubert noted this and anticipated that Claude was planning on making his own attack.

Shutting down Derdrieu was done right before chapter 14, after the invasion began, yes? If so, Claude is certainly justified in launching a counter-attack against the country that just invaded his own, and was attempting to take the capiral. He likely viewed shutting down the city as necessary for this step, even if it was morally questionable (of course, he wouldn't need to resort to such a tactic, had the invasion never occured). And we can't know whether he would have attacked a non-invasive Empire by calling on the support of Almyra (doing so would likely splinter the Alliance further). We only know he did in this case, when the fates of House Riegan, and the whole Alliance, were at stake.

  Reveal hidden contents

That's why I think Byleth can choose to side with Edelgard after seeing the coronation. Because there, he witnessed Edelgard strip Duke Aegir of power and imprison him, but not kill him. When Edelgard was at Rhea's mercy after Chapter 11 battle, Rhea immediately ordered for Edelgard's death. Not capture for questioning and then using her to stop a war, but just demanding death.

That's... actually a really good rationale for why the coronation scene is required for Byleth to go CF. Not sure if that's what the devs had in mind, but I like the interpretation. 

I doubt it was intentional. Byleth following Edelgard because she has a higher respect for life comes off as rather flat when Edelgard has literally just tried to murder you and all your friends. Still baffled they put the choice after the battle and not before it. First time through I thought I'd fucked something up and would be forced to do Church Route again.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jotari said:

For the route that seems to have gotten the Lion's Share of the budget, that one character trying to kill Dimitri after Gronder Field was ridiculously half-assed.

I doubt it was intentional. Byleth following Edelgard because she has a higher respect for life comes off as rather flat when Edelgard has literally just tried to murder you and all your friends. Still baffled they put the choice after the battle and not before it. First time through I thought I'd fucked something up and would be forced to do Church Route again.

Edelgard should have just distributed an anonymous note:

Spoiler

"Some of you guys are alright. Don't go to the Holy Tomb this month.

Love, Flame Emperor"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Edelgard should have just distributed an anonymous note:

  Hide contents

"Some of you guys are alright. Don't go to the Holy Tomb this month.

Love, Flame Emperor"

 

You know I think just asking her friends as Edelgard to not go would have worked. They trust her and if she really asked they probably would have obeyed. Byleth absolutely had to be there because that was the whole reason Rhea was showing them the place, but Linheart and Petra etc didn't have to go at all. She brought them there fully aware they were armed and that she would have to subdue, and if need be kill, them. And she even has the gall to say she doesn't intend to kill them in her generic battle convo, despite giving a direct order to her troops to do so. Simply arranging it so they wouldn't be there would have been much smarter and more humane (course they needed to be there so we could have a battle, but that's the way the cookie crumbles).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Claude's actions may have been improper, but they were still an internal matter to the Alliance. He did not do the Empire harm, he merely prevented other Alliance lords from offering the Empire help. Invading is at best an over-reaction, sanctions may have been an appropriate response by the Empire.

It really isn't an overreaction. Edelgard is at a standstill at the war against the Kingdom and Church, and has a shortage of troops. At best they are just maintaining a standstill which can change within a moment's notice if Dimitri and Rhea raise a strong enough army to launch their own invasion. Claude refusing to lend the Empire aid means he's still attributing to its destruction by actively preventing anyone that has a right to send help. Once again, I remind you that Gloucester and Ordelia have every right to send aid to the Empire.

10 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Shutting down Derdrieu was done right before chapter 14, after the invasion began, yes? If so, Claude is certainly justified in launching a counter-attack against the country that just invaded his own, and was attempting to take the capiral. He likely viewed shutting down the city as necessary for this step, even if it was morally questionable (of course, he wouldn't need to resort to such a tactic, had the invasion never occured). And we can't know whether he would have attacked a non-invasive Empire by calling on the support of Almyra (doing so would likely splinter the Alliance further). We only know he did in this case, when the fates of House Riegan, and the whole Alliance, were at stake.

No, if he really wanted to protect civilians, he could have done what he did in Azure Moon, which was evacuate Derdriu on ships. But in CF, he shut Derdriu down and endangered the civilians. When Edelgard defeated the enemies on the Derdriu city, a villager pleads with Edelgard not to hurt the city, and Edelgard assures him that she will not harm anyone in the city, and the target is Claude. So Claude literally endangered people's lives to likely keep the fact that he brought in Almyran reinforcements a secret. 

And Claude literally admits that he wanted to be Fodlan's supreme ruler himself. Claude is  schemer. He always wanted to tear down the barriers, but he sought to unite the Alliance. Contrary to what quite a few thing, Claude's not some jokester or someone harmless. He will go to extremes if necessary. Edelgard starting a war is something Claude sought to capitalize on.

You think Almyrans, people that like to invade for FUN, would settle for merely defense? 

Let's be real, if Edelgard literally turned her back, Claude and the Almyrans would have stabbed her, Dimitri, and Rhea in the back.

10 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

That's... actually a really good rationale for why the coronation scene is required for Byleth to go CF. Not sure if that's what the devs had in mind, but I like the interpretation. 

Thanks. Cause keep in mind that Edelgard no doubt WANTS Duke Aegir dead. In C+ support, she said that he was the one responsible for the experiments being done to her, along with his gaggle of nobles. And he was even mentioned in the coronation scene between Ionius and Edelgard. So it's clear that Edelgard had every reason to kill Duke Aegir.

And when Edelgard was beaten and at Rhea's mercy, Rhea only ever orders for Edelgard's death, just like she ordered the deaths of everyone else that would oppose the Church.

There's no in-betweens for Rhea.

This is also why in CF, Byleth has the chance to sparing people without recruiting them, in the form of Claude, Seteth, and Flayn.

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

I doubt it was intentional. Byleth following Edelgard because she has a higher respect for life comes off as rather flat when Edelgard has literally just tried to murder you and all your friends. Still baffled they put the choice after the battle and not before it. First time through I thought I'd fucked something up and would be forced to do Church Route again.

Not really, given how she literally admits that she never intended to kill anyone when you fight her with any of the BE students. It makes no sense why it would be before, since the key to is it that she's at her lowest and definitely at the worst viewpoint. So you have to wonder if you should trust her or not. Byleth chose to believe in her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

It really isn't an overreaction. Edelgard is at a standstill at the war against the Kingdom and Church, and has a shortage of troops. At best they are just maintaining a standstill which can change within a moment's notice if Dimitri and Rhea raise a strong enough army to launch their own invasion. Claude refusing to lend the Empire aid means he's still attributing to its destruction by actively preventing anyone that has a right to send help. Once again, I remind you that Gloucester and Ordelia have every right to send aid to the Empire.

No, if he really wanted to protect civilians, he could have done what he did in Azure Moon, which was evacuate Derdriu on ships. But in CF, he shut Derdriu down and endangered the civilians. When Edelgard defeated the enemies on the Derdriu city, a villager pleads with Edelgard not to hurt the city, and Edelgard assures him that she will not harm anyone in the city, and the target is Claude. So Claude literally endangered people's lives to likely keep the fact that he brought in Almyran reinforcements a secret. 

And Claude literally admits that he wanted to be Fodlan's supreme ruler himself. Claude is  schemer. He always wanted to tear down the barriers, but he sought to unite the Alliance. Contrary to what quite a few thing, Claude's not some jokester or someone harmless. He will go to extremes if necessary. Edelgard starting a war is something Claude sought to capitalize on.

You think Almyrans, people that like to invade for FUN, would settle for merely defense? 

Let's be real, if Edelgard literally turned her back, Claude and the Almyrans would have stabbed her, Dimitri, and Rhea in the back.

Thanks. Cause keep in mind that Edelgard no doubt WANTS Duke Aegir dead. In C+ support, she said that he was the one responsible for the experiments being done to her, along with his gaggle of nobles. And he was even mentioned in the coronation scene between Ionius and Edelgard. So it's clear that Edelgard had every reason to kill Duke Aegir.

And when Edelgard was beaten and at Rhea's mercy, Rhea only ever orders for Edelgard's death, just like she ordered the deaths of everyone else that would oppose the Church.

There's no in-betweens for Rhea.

This is also why in CF, Byleth has the chance to sparing people without recruiting them, in the form of Claude, Seteth, and Flayn.

Not really, given how she literally admits that she never intended to kill anyone when you fight her with any of the BE students. It makes no sense why it would be before, since the key to is it that she's at her lowest and definitely at the worst viewpoint. So you have to wonder if you should trust her or not. Byleth chose to believe in her. 

Yes, she says she won't kill you, and then proceeds to drive an axe into the face of whomever is standing in front of her. This is also after she has very clearly ordered her soldiers to kill all who resist. Orders they do in fact carry out. Characters can die in that chapter if you let them. Edelgard was not wearing kiddies gloves in that chapter. She was prepared to kill her friends for standing in her way, and she allowed them to be brought there, armed, knowing they would probably stand in her away (or at the very least she makes like zero attempts to convince them to join her or explain herself before the fighting begins). It's an ultimatum of "do exactly what I say or di"e. She also brought demonic beasts along to this exchange (how in the hell she managed to sneak them into the monastery is beyond me, but she managed it). Edelgard was going there with a goal in mind and judging by the force present, she was expecting and prepared for resistance.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are the aggressor you can't claim that you don't want to kill anyone. Are you going to blame any death that happen to the people that decided to defend themselves?

Edited by Flere210

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jotari said:

Yes, she says she won't kill you, and then proceeds to drive an axe into the face of whomever is standing in front of her. This is also after she has very clearly ordered her soldiers to kill all who resist. Orders they do in fact carry out. Characters can die in that chapter if you let them. Edelgard was not wearing kiddies gloves in that chapter. She was prepared to kill her friends for standing in her way, and she allowed them to be brought there, armed, knowing they would probably stand in her away (or at the very least she makes like zero attempts to convince them to join her or explain herself before the fighting begins). She also brought demonic beasts along to this exchange (how in the hell she managed to sneak them into the monastery is beyond me, but she managed it). Edelgard was going there with a goal in mind and judging by the force present, she was expecting resistance.

No, they don't. Read her quote:

Quote

Edelgard: Despite what I said, I have no intention of killing you. So why not stand down and get out of my way?

And fact of the matter is, you can't die in the chapter. In fact, in Silver Snow, if any BE students were beaten in Part 1, Edelgard has a line saying that friends from back then have joined her, even though you don't fight them in SS.

Quote

Edelgard: Before you answer, know that friends from our Black Eagle days have chosen to join me in the fight ahead.

So yeah, in the end, no one actually dies, nor does she actually try to murder you. In the end, it was 100% a bluff, even though she did come to launch an attack.

Just now, Flere210 said:

If you are the aggressor you can't claim that you don't want to kill anyone. Are you going to blame any death that happen to the people that decided to defend themselves?

Edelgard would prefer to spare anyone if she's able to. It's why she's able to spare Claude, is okay with Byleth letting Flayn and Seteth live, and even tries to get Rhea to surrender. 

Keep in mind that Edelgard admits that she's fully aware and prepared for the deaths that will inevitably come from the war. But she doesn't want to kill if she's able to help it in following through with her goal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...